Sponsor Message:
Aviation Hobby Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FS9 Vs. FSX For A Laptop  
User currently offlineDAL7e7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 357 posts, RR: 3
Posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9199 times:

Hey guys,
I just got a new laptop. HP Pavilion dv4 w/ 380GB HD, 4GB RAM, and 1.7GB Video Memory and Windows Vista. I was wondering if it would be more beneficial to put FS9 or FSX on it. On my desktop, I'm having loads of FSX problems with a much faster machine.


Any input is appreciated.

Thanks,
Trey


DAL7e7 is wondering... Do pilots take crash courses?
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFatmirJusufi From Albania, joined Jan 2009, 2441 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9196 times:

Well, I'd suggest going with FS9. It's not that bad though.

Here are my specs and I'm still using FS9. Never tried X version.
Intel Core2DUO E8400 @3.0GHz
2GB RAM Patriot 800 MHz
500GB HDD 7200 rpm
nVidia 9600GT

But on the other hand if it's possible to get informed about your CPU and GPU. You haven't noticed.

Regards,
Fatmir



DO FLIGHTS. NOT FIGHTS.
User currently offlineJasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

Generally on most comparable configurations FS9 will run faster than FS-X, the margin will vary. I still use FS9 on a Core2Duo 2.8Ghz (4Gb Ram) with a 9600 and it runs really well 50+ fps everywhere with everything on. I also ran it on a similar spec on a laptop and it ran slower 30+ fps but the difference was naturally the graphics capability. Once you get to Core2 the difference is always the GPU. I can't comment on FSX as I tried it briefly, didn't like it and sold it on. Just seemed a bit generic and 'cartoony' for me.

User currently offlineFlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7119 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9067 times:

FS9 will be your best bet with the laptop, but it can mess up a little bit with vista in my experience I was only FSUPIC was not installed which messed up some add on's just had to reinstall it. I run FS9 on a 6 year old Sony Desktop and plan on running it on it for a few more years until I am out of school and get a job etc.. I only get 20fps but it is still works fine. Only problem I have is loading up newer add ons but once they are loaded I dont have any problems.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9030 times:

If I read correctly that your Laptop has a video adapter with 1.7 GB of dedicated RAM, FSX should do very well. If these 1.7 GB are shared forget FSX. FSX needs a real grafics adapter with 320 MB of dedicated video RAM, then it is way faster than FS) to display the same. But putting the huge high resolution textures over a shared memory bus is no good idea.

User currently offlineDAL7e7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 357 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9022 times:

I own them both already, and I tested them, and FSX was like flying frame-by-frame. Everything looked great, but the detail wasn't worth the crappy framrates.

I can buy extra scenery and stuff to make FS9 look like FSX, right?

Thanks,
Trey



DAL7e7 is wondering... Do pilots take crash courses?
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8977 times:

No way. Even with the best FS9 addons out there, FS9 grafics are limited significantly. As long as you stick to large airports and airliners, the difference is less visible, but when it comes to scenery, bush flying or even photo scenery FS9 is just a cartoon compared to FSX.
One when you feed FSX with FS9 content, this does not look better.


User currently offlineDAL7e7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 357 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8952 times:



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6):

Well, not exactly, but I can get it close, right?

I'm having severe FSX problems right now, to the point of uninstalling and reinstalling it. I'm pretty fed up with it. My desktop was built to handle it, and it still crashes all the time.

Anyone else have these problems?

Thanks,

Trey



DAL7e7 is wondering... Do pilots take crash courses?
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8941 times:



Quoting DAL7e7 (Reply 7):
Well, not exactly, but I can get it close, right?

No. With FS9 ground textures have a pixel size of 5x5m, with FSX almost everything is possible - and you need 1x1 or at least 2x2 to recognize a railway. In FS9, railway lines are 50 m wide and still hard to recognize. No way to make a scenery for FS9 that has a resolution that is not 25 times worse than what Google Earth has for most of the world now.

3d Objects doen't show proper reflections of the sun and other primary light sources, ...

Compare the richness and detail of FSX autogen with the low resolution primitive stuff in FS9.

The step from FS9 to FSX is like from a Cessna 150 to an A380.

FS8/9 use the same principle grafics, and that just is almost 10 years old now.

I use FSX heavily every day, and have only once had a series of crashes that I could pin down to a mistype I made in an aircraft.cfg file. FSX after SP2 is the most stable and reliable MSFS I ever had, and I produce FS addons since FS5.1 .


User currently offlineWNTex From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7718 times:



Quoting DAL7e7 (Reply 7):
Anyone else have these problems?

yes! i was quite pissed at myself initially. i bought a new PC just for FSX (pretty decent specs) and either have to really water the graphics settings or suffer with a really slow frame rate. so, i still use FS9 and enjoy it thoroughly.

and yeah, i reinstalled it several times, tried to optimize everything, and nothing helped. thanks mircrosoft  Yeah sure

cheers

WNTex



"The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." -Zig Ziglar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FS9 Vs. FSX For A Laptop
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Aviation hobby related posts only.
  • Back all your opinions with facts.
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Heathrow Scenery For FS9 & FSX Coming Soon! posted Fri Aug 31 2007 19:38:26 by BAW076
Whats The Diff In Active Sky AS 6.5 Vs ASA For S9 posted Sun May 17 2009 07:26:51 by KLM672
Cars In FS9 Like FSX posted Tue Nov 25 2008 17:05:39 by KLM672
Pmdg 747-400 FS9 And FSX Updates To Come! posted Tue Apr 15 2008 15:16:32 by Qantas744ER
How To Add FS9 A/C To FSX? posted Wed Mar 7 2007 01:49:09 by NZ747
FS9 Or FSX Networking Help Needed posted Fri Dec 29 2006 04:09:24 by Indy
FSX Standard Vs FSX Deluxe posted Thu Oct 26 2006 02:56:13 by QantasA380
GPS Software/Reciever For Laptop posted Sat Sep 23 2006 20:58:57 by COERJ145
FS9 NO Airport For ACC posted Sat Mar 4 2006 21:19:32 by Kl692
FSX, For Sale This Month Per PC Gamer Magazine? posted Fri Feb 10 2006 20:08:45 by CVGpilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format